Real ID decision due soon

Real ID is a lot like the weather: Everybody's talking about it, but no one is doing anything about it. Due much to the complexity of the federal plan that would in essence mean a national identification card via one's driver's license, and in part because, hey, it's the feds, our state now stands in the classic rock/hard place position.

We have a state law that says South Carolina will not comply with Real ID. Gov. Mark Sanford and his staff maintain that to request an extension for compliance (the deadline for same is Monday), would have him in violation of state law. That's because the governor's office research and conversations with Homeland Security has convinced them that requesting an extension for compliance is a tacit agreement to comply.

And that would be in clear violation of state law.

Yet the legislature has a point, in that both the House and the Senate have passed resolutions requesting the governor to file for what Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, has called the "initial extension." That extension — and in South Carolina, the governor is the only one who can take action, as the Department of Motor Vehicles is in his cabinet — has been done in other states, according to Mr. Harrell's office, including other states whose legislatures also passed laws against compliance with Real ID.

The objections to the program go beyond the privacy issues that might be compromised by a database of driver's license holders on a national level. Although some sources have said it would not be a true national database with access by anyone, only state databases that could be accessed on what we would call a "need-to-know" basis by officials, it still makes us a little queasy to think of how such information could be used.

The expense of implementing Real ID, yet another unfunded mandate from the federal government (we'd call it legal blackmail, but we don't want Homeland Security coming after us), would cost South Carolina between $20 million and $25 million. In addition, we would be obligated to spend between $10 million and $15 million per year to operate the program.

And as we told readers recently, through Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, who offered the legislation in the Senate last year to officially oppose Real ID, our laws regulating driver's licenses are already so stringent as to meet 16 of the 18 requirements set out in Real ID.

Real ID didn't make it on its own merits when it was first offered as a stand-alone measure in 2004. It only passed muster in a middle-of-the-night committee meeting and was hidden inside an Iraq war spending bill.

That alone is enough to make one leery of its value or its implications.

And least it makes us pretty leery, even though we admit to being active members of the cynical-and-suspicious-of-everyone journalism fraternity.

In any event, Mr. Harrell's position, as explained to us on Wednesday afternoon by Greg Foster of his office is that "we want the initial extension, which does not infer compliance and carries no requirements." This is after, at the Speaker's request, the summary of the Real ID Act was reviewed by several attorneys. "We have no conflict about the law," Mr. Foster said. "We still have several concerns, including privacy issues, documentation and the (cost of) an unfunded mandate.

Joel Sawyer of Mr. Sanford's office remains skeptical about a request for extension not interpreted as an intent to comply, after what he said were several conversations with people from Homeland Security. The next step is a formal response from Mr. Sanford, "on or before March 31; we are well aware of the deadline," Mr. Sawyer said.